No snow clearing this winter

[GB]

Ok – So far I’ve proposed two solutions – 1) we pay for it our selves with a direct bill to those people who volunteer to be billed. 2) we propose a bike tax to pay for it (I don’t accept the “the bike tax will cost more to implement than it will generate” argument b/c you simply raise the tax to cover implementation + desired service).

I’ve read a suggestion that we clear the trail ourselves. – Which is an option and something I’d participate in.

And I’ve read a lot of complaints. Unfortunatly complaints didn’t clear trails (although they are helpful in identifying problems).If they did we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

The point of my post – which someone said they missed, was to propose a solution to snowy trails.

I think I’ve said my piece on this topic; which is in summary, that (winter) trail users should and can pay for snow removal if they really want it.

[jabberwocky]

@GregBain 68679 wrote:

Ok – So far I’ve proposed two solutions – 1) we pay for it our selves with a direct bill to those people who volunteer to be billed. 2) we propose a bike tax to pay for it (I don’t accept the “the bike tax will cost more to implement than it will generate” argument b/c you simply raise the tax to cover implementation + desired service).

First, I don’t see how a “bike tax” would work. A tax on bikes sold? Because that would tax a lot of people who don’t ride in the winter, and miss everyone who buys bikes out of the area or online. A yearly tax on bikes? Because that would cost way more to implement than it would bring in, unless your tax is quite high. And in any case would probably be almost impossible to enforce.

I don’t see why this is some massive issue. I understand the budgetary issues, but those are largely agency related (i.e. NVRPA doesn’t have the budget for plowing because they are a smaller agency that solely manages parks). But I seriously doubt it would really matter to the transportation agencies. How many tens of thousands of miles of roadway are cleared in NoVA after each snow event? How hard would it really be to clear off a few dozen miles of 8-10 foot wide MUP in addition to that?

Its more a matter of political will than dollars.

[jabberwocky]

@KLizotte 68678 wrote:

Yes, at best (using the most generous assumptions) the gas taxes cover 50% of the most tangible, direct costs. The remainder comes out of the GF. There is also the issue of air and noise pollution which gas taxes don’t really address in most cases, as well as the cost to society imposed by accidents, police having to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with motorists instead of other problems, unhealthy people from spending too much time in the cars, the heat island effect from too much asphalt, etc. Much of the reason the cost of fuel is so much higher in most other developed countries is to force consumers to internalize most of these costs and to pay for transportation improvements. Americans have divorced the true cost of driving from what they pay. *sigh*

And runoff from impermeable surfaces (i.e. pavement) is a major contributor to water pollution. And the fact that car accidents kill more people each year than any other accidental cause. And the lost time due to injuries in car accidents (2 million+ per year). And the additional development costs to provide massive parking lots/garages at places of work and retail. Etc. Etc.

Automobiles are hugely subsidized in our society. Gas taxes alone don’t even cover maintenance on infrastructure we’ve already built.

[DismalScientist]

Geez… GB’s original post was just a thought experiment on how to do the cost/benefit analysis of plowing the trail. It has nothing to do with the gas tax. The collection from cyclists was purely hypothetical. (What we really need is a Clark Tax to implement public goods like street and trail plowing.:rolleyes:)

The county has implicitly conducted this cost/benefit analysis and decided not to plow the trail. Of course, the county does this analysis for streets as well and apparently decides not to plow neighborhood streets in a timely matter as well.:rolleyes: What good are plowed trails anyway if you can’t reach them on plowed streets?:confused:

[mstone]

@GregBain 68679 wrote:

(I don’t accept the “the bike tax will cost more to implement than it will generate” argument b/c you simply raise the tax to cover implementation + desired service).

Congratulations, you’ve managed to turn the most accessible form of mechanical transportation ever invented by humankind into something that many current users can’t afford, just to provide the benefit of being able to tell people that cyclists pay a special cyclist tax.

[GB]

@mstone 68689 wrote:

Congratulations, you’ve managed to turn the most accessible form of mechanical transportation ever invented by humankind into something that many current users can’t afford, just to provide the benefit of being able to tell people that cyclists pay a special cyclist tax.

OMG – hyperbole.

And if we’re handing out sarcastic congrats – Congratulations, you’ve complained. Again.

[KLizotte]

I’m on the fence about whether I support a hypothetical bike tax to pay for snow clearing. On the one hand, if it were really cheap and effective then I’d say yes, just do it. It sure beats no exercise or a bad spill. On the other hand, I already pay a lot out of the General Fund for motorists’ use and abuse and I hardly ever drive (<2,500 miles a year) so I feel like I've already contributed more than my fair share. If motorists fully covered their costs and non-drivers chipped in a little for positive externalities (like being able to access an ambulance or fire truck when needed) then I'd happily pay any bike taxes necessary to cover all the incremental costs to the system bikes impose. We should, however, be careful not to set up the expectation that cyclists should start paying the full costs of building and maintaining trails all the time. Lastly, given that trails are not an excludable good (meaning you can't keep out folks who don't pay for the snow plowing) this is the generally agreed upon argument for government providing the service.

A conundrum…..

[NickBull]

@GregBain 68679 wrote:

Ok – So far I’ve proposed two solutions – 1) we pay for it our selves with a direct bill to those people who volunteer to be billed. 2) we propose a bike tax to pay for it (I don’t accept the “the bike tax will cost more to implement than it will generate” argument b/c you simply raise the tax to cover implementation + desired service).

I’ve read a suggestion that we clear the trail ourselves. – Which is an option and something I’d participate in.

And I’ve read a lot of complaints. Unfortunatly complaints didn’t clear trails (although they are helpful in identifying problems).If they did we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

The point of my post – which someone said they missed, was to propose a solution to snowy trails.

I think I’ve said my piece on this topic; which is in summary, that (winter) trail users should and can pay for snow removal if they really want it.

But you’ve ignored everyone else’s proposed solution: This is already something that should be getting paid for out of the taxes that we pay to Arlington. And you ignored my analysis of the costs of clearing the Custis Trail. As Tim Kelley points out, the trail is only 4.4 miles long, so take my estimate and multiply by 4.4/7 to get a re-estimated annual cost to clear the Custis of $3400.

So given that there were 900 cyclists using the Custis in January, as cited by rcannon, that amounts to $3.80 per cyclist (maybe some cyclists are double-counted, but if the paths were cleared regularly there would also likely be more cyclists).

Now, one of the main points of having a government is to eliminate free rider problems. So collecting $3.80 from each of those people in turn is not necessary. We just fund this out of the general fund.

And we realize that we are talking about spending one metro fare on each of these riders to keep the Custis clear through the winter.

I suspect that we are paying way more than that per driver to keep the roads clear. And since most local roads are paid for with local taxes, you are paying this with your property taxes (are there Arlington-specific sales taxes? I don’t think so, but maybe.)

[GB]

@NickBull 68701 wrote:

But you’ve ignored everyone else’s proposed solution: This is already something that should be getting paid for out of the taxes that we pay to Arlington. And you ignored my analysis of the costs of clearing the Custis Trail. As Tim Kelley points out, the trail is only 4.4 miles long, so take my estimate and multiply by 4.4/7 to get a re-estimated annual cost to clear the Custis of $3400.

I’m not ignoring everyone’s proposed solution, Arlington County Government is. I was proposing a solution in light of / in lieu of that.

Sorry I missed your assessment that put clearing the Custis at $3,400 – That’s great, thanks for doing that math! That should make clearing the trail cost beneficial for more people.

[MattAune]

@NickBull 68701 wrote:

(are there Arlington-specific sales taxes? I don’t think so, but maybe.)

Yes. http://www.tax-rates.org/virginia/arlington_county_sales_tax

While I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of clearing the trails, you are also ignoring that many (most?) of the people to benefit from cleared trails are not cyclists, so you’re cost per users estimate may be fairly accurate.

My stance here is probably pretty unpopular. The County and State should be spending significantly less on snow removal for roads, and certainly not increasing the budget to clear trails. Get winter tires and chains for your car, studded tires for your bike, or just plan ahead and expect to be at home when it snows more than a couple inches.

[DismalScientist]

The preceding analysis is based on paying someone $60/hour to shovel at 7/9 mph. I think that is optimistic. How much do you have to pay some teenager to get off his ass and shovel the sidewalk? Multiply that up to inflate the distance of your sidewalk to 7/9 of a mile and you will be paying a lot more than $60.

@NickBull 68701 wrote:

Now, one of the main points of having a government is to eliminate free rider problems.

Hahahahahaha.
What percentage of government budget involves the actual provision of public goods?

[jhr]

Someone needs to invent an electric-assist snowplow utility fatbike (OK, maybe it would have to be a fattrike?) that can be used to inexpensively clear bike paths.

[Tim Kelley]

@jhr 68705 wrote:

Someone needs to invent an electric-assist snowplow utility fatbike (OK, maybe it would have to be a fattrike?) that can be used to inexpensively clear bike paths.

I’m posting these videos and links so that no one else has to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zZkyLTfLPg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reIHx1ozxYk

http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/pbar/organizationalchart/peterson/snowplow_files/Bike_Plow.html

[KayakCyndi]

@Tim Kelley 68706 wrote:

I’m posting these videos and links so that no one else has to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zZkyLTfLPg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reIHx1ozxYk

http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/pbar/organizationalchart/peterson/snowplow_files/Bike_Plow.html

Ha! On this morning’s commute in I rode with Rob who happens to have a big cargo bike. We started discussing winter and I suggested just this — snowplow on the cargo. Of course I’m still planning on single-handedly ceasing all snow by getting studded tires for the Ogre.

[DismalScientist]

It’s my understanding that the plow drivers are just regular Arlington county employees.

Perhaps we should get a bike plow built from the BikeArlington capital fund and have a BikeArlington employee plow the Loop after a snowstorm.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Author]

Posts